I agree with John that "designers" like the look of the TV above the fireplace as an artistic statement, but I doubt they spend much time actually watching such a set-up. Unless you're an NBA player, I think the neck strain will get to you real quick.

The depth required by even the shallowest of the video components, which the predominance of flat-screens these days generally means the cable box or HT receiver, would likely be more than enough to accommodate a more optimally dimensioned speaker enclosure.
In fact, I could easily envision a pair of BIBs (top vented), either built in or with a separate bridging cabinet for the electronics and TV,

It is possible, but as Chris says, you are going to be fighting early reflections. Cone treatment would help there, but trying to get as much depth as possible and making the back irregular would help.

With the PAWOs (shallow FE127 cabinet), the difference adding the 3/4' suprabaffle makes is very audible.

Originally posted by planet10 It is possible, but as Chris says, you are going to be fighting early reflections. Cone treatment would help there...
dave

what if he applied a layer of deflex or other sound absorbing or reflecting material the the back of teh cabinet? It might allow for a cabinet that might be a bit slimer than normally used. Also if the front baffle was angled it could help.

I am not advocating that the cabinet be so slim that the magnet almost touch the rear of the speaker but the object, I think, is to see how slim one can make the cabinet without hainvg serious problems.

Originally posted by navin
what if he applied a layer of deflex or other sound absorbing or reflecting material the the back of teh cabinet? It might allow for a cabinet that might be a bit slimer than normally used. Also if the front baffle was angled it could help.

That is going to help -- particularily irregular geometry -- but keep in mind that effectiveness is frequency related (lower freq need larger trregulatity of thickness of sound absorbing material.

I'll have to disagree with some on this one. the Fostex designed FE166E horn enclosure has a very close back wall, and the 168E sigma enclosure has little more room.
The magnet assembly on these speakers is large enough to prevent most direct reflections anyway. I think the basket and spider of the driver itself will show more reflections to the cone than the cabinet wall. As long as the aspect ratio (width to height) of the box isn't too high, which would effect box losses, and hence tuning frequency, I can't see the shallow box having too much of a negative impact.
I agree too a certain degree that a deeper box will breath better, but a shallow one should work.
Use a good quality fill material, preferably long fibre wool, to kill any standing waves.
Yes, you can place the port on the top, side or wherever you like, but it's a good idea not to have it too far away from the driver.

Well thats what I thought too.
The recommended enclosures have very little depth behind the speaker unit.
In the FE166E enclosure the speaker is only 85mm away from the back panel and the speaker is 73,2mm deep. Thats only about 1cm difference.
The FE167E is 85 mm deep because of the magnetical shielding so if the back of the enclosure is at 95mm thats even better as 85mm in the FE166E enclosure right?
Also to note that these speakers are for home theatre use so probably will be cut at 70-80 Hz anyway.

Ted Jordan also advocates shallow enclosures (his VTL, for example), suggesting that the reflections will be higher in freq and easier to suppress with damping. The VTL has about a quarter inch behind the driver, the back wall lines with thick felt and a cutput for the vent in the magnet. He takes a similar approach fo the JXR6 enclosure, made up of ply frames. From the playing round I've done with tall, narrow enclosures, I definitely think it's worth going for more space around the sides of the drivers.

How are the sonics affected by the proximity of the rear wall? All I can think of is that an eigentone corresponding to this distance may be a little more noticable due to it being in the ears most sensitive frequency range.. Wouldn't some stuffing break up the reflections?
I suppose that if there was a peak in the free space response of the driver at the same frequency as the standing wave in the enclosure, it may become more of a problem, but that could happen for any dimension of the cabinet if not accounted for in the initial design.

Quote:

I don't know about those 2, but the FE103 & FE206 recommended boxes do have a problem with the proximity of the back wall.

Is the problem accentuated by the minimal use of damping material in most horn enclosures? I know that dynamics are addictive, so there becomes a real balancing act between the perceived speed and liveness, and a smoother response.
I reckon that if there was a peak in the free space response of the driver at the same frequency as the standing wave in the enclosure, it may become more of a problem, but that could happen for any dimension of the cabinet if not accounted for in the initial design.
I think for the application promitheus has in mind, a bit of stuffing wouldn't hurt!